Mr. RALSTON:

W'hat do they mean, then?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The Prime Minister has stated emphatically that he made no such imputation with respect to the matter, and I must accept his statement.

Mr. RALSTON:

I ask. then, that the words be struck out of the record, if they do not mean anything. I am asking that your honour direct that.

Privilege-Mr. Ralston

Mr. BENNETT:

They are in my record.

Mr. RALSTON:

With all due deference to the ruling of Your Honour, I submit that every lawyer in Canada except your honour and the Prime Minister will take the meaning from those words which I have suggested.

Mr. BENNETT:

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) sits beside me and he does not.

Mr. RALSTON:

If the Minister of Justice can tell me what they mean, if they do not mean that, I would appreciate it.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I certainly did not think that the words contained any such imputation as my hon. friend seeks to find in them. I have had considerable experience in the province of Ontario in the giving and taking of briefs and I have never seen the fee marked on the back of a brief. 1 know in England it is the custom and practice to mark the brief with the fee.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Every lawyer knows that, and that is why he would take the imputation.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I do not believe that is the practice in any part of Canada. I heard the statement made and no hon. member in the house placed the interpretation upon it which my hon. friend does.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

The

right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) objected immediately afterwards.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Every lawyer on this side

took that imputation.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

The reference as to what was endorsed on the brief was an interrogation as to where the brief had come from, nothing more than that. It was an inquiry as to whether it represented this or that interest. I think my right hon. friend is putting the matter entirely beyond reason when he suggests that the Prime Minister made any such imputation.

Mr. RALSTON:

I am only taking the

Prime Minister's words, 'based on his knowledge of the practice of solicitors and barristers.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I am satisfied that no

such imputation existed in the minds of hon. members of this house.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

The

Minister of Justice said that no one put that interpretation upon the words of the Prime fMr. Ralston.]

Minister but immediately after they were uttered the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) got up and said:

I must say that the right hon. gentleman is saying either too much or too little. He has reflected upon an hon. member in his absence.

Mr. Bennett: I have no right to be interrupted.

Mr. Mackenzie King: I will not sit here and see a colleague misrepresented by anybody and especially by the Prime Minister. I wish to say that the hon. member of whom he has spoken is an hon. member and not open to the kind of reflections that have been made.

The observations of the Minister of Justice fall very flat indeed.

Mr. POULIOT:

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have already ruled on

the question of privilege.

Mr. POULIOT:

I am speaking to the question of privilege and I have a precedent to quote to your honour.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have already given my

ruling in connection with the matter and I see no reason to change it. The matter has been dealt with quite fully. The Prime Minister has made an emphatic and clear statement that he did not attribute to the words he uttered the meaning suggested by the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth. I am bound to accept the Prime Minister's denial of the meaning which has been taken from the words.